Justice Thomas Speaks

[Jenksismyhero]

Anyone else see this interview? Here's a good article about it:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/...in3305443.shtml

 

I thought it was great. The guy has gotten a bad rap most of his career. Probably doesn't hurt that I am also conservative, but I agree with most of his opinions, especially his refusal to use the Constitution as a piece of TP. I really like this qoute:

 

"There are tough decisions we have to make in life. And of course, we all feel about that. People think that because you might agree or disagree with them on certain things, that you don't have that concern about people who are left with tough choices. You do have that concern. But none of that had anything to do with what's in the Constitution. The point is simply this. The Constitution is what matters. Not my personal views, whatever they may be. And I don't go around expressing them on that issue," Thomas says. "

 

What are your thoughts on him/this interview?

Edited October 1, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

Great article. One thing I particularly agreed with is his points regarding the public demanding certain behavior because he's black. I disagreed with vilifying Craig for voting against the rest of the homosexual community and whenever it comes up with anyone else who is a certain race, religions, etc. It would seem to me there would be the same diversity of opinion among any group of people.

 

I disagree that race hasn't helped him. It does help being a Republican in black skin. But if those ideals are his true ideals, and I believe they are, then we really can't fault him for the benefits he received. In fact it would be worse if he abandoned his beliefs in an attempt to match what some AA would demand.

 

Interesting that b**** mentioned using the Constitution for tp. I guess we'd disagree what that means. With Bush's use of the Homeland Security bills, I think that's exactly what the GOP is doing.

[Jenksismyhero]

Great article. One thing I particularly agreed with is his points regarding the public demanding certain behavior because he's black. I disagreed with vilifying Craig for voting against the rest of the homosexual community and whenever it comes up with anyone else who is a certain race, religions, etc. It would seem to me there would be the same diversity of opinion among any group of people.

 

I disagree that race hasn't helped him. It does help being a Republican in black skin. But if those ideals are his true ideals, and I believe they are, then we really can't fault him for the benefits he received. In fact it would be worse if he abandoned his beliefs in an attempt to match what some AA would demand.

 

Interesting that b**** mentioned using the Constitution for tp. I guess we'd disagree what that means. With Bush's use of the Homeland Security bills, I think that's exactly what the GOP is doing.

 

 

My only distinction would be that the Court in those types of cases only approve (and also disapprove) of some of what he and Congress have done. They look at the Constitution and ask "does this fit with their enumerated powers." The power of the Executive and of Congress to act in times of war is pretty broad. That's different than the past decisions dealing with rights (affirmative action cases, religious freedom cases, homosexual rights cases, state power v federal powers cases, etc) that are sweeping opinions mainly arguing about public policy and not the law and the Constitution.

 

[southsider2k5]

They tried to Swiftboat Thomas, before Swiftboating was even cool.

 

To be honest, the whole abortion things comes off kinda cooky.

[Texsox]

My only distinction would be that the Court in those types of cases only approve (and also disapprove) of some of what he and Congress have done. They look at the Constitution and ask "does this fit with their enumerated powers." The power of the Executive and of Congress to act in times of war is pretty broad. That's different than the past decisions dealing with rights (affirmative action cases, religious freedom cases, homosexual rights cases, state power v federal powers cases, etc) that are sweeping opinions mainly arguing about public policy and not the law and the Constitution.

 

I have to agree with your comments about the SCOTUS, especially because it is basically the same rational I have for the ACLU, especially when I disagree with the scum they are representing before the court. But the current political climate is to toss personal freedoms aside. Thankfully we have the SCOTUS and groups like the ACLU to fight that.

 

Despite the difficult start, I think Thomas has done well on the Court. I think he was guilty of harassment, but if we can elect someone like that President, we certainly can tolerate that on the bench. Which is very sad.

[jasonxctf]

any justice, liberal or conservative, is trying to put their ideology into the court and onto their decisions. anyone claiming otherwise is full of sh*t.

[Texsox]

any justice, liberal or conservative, is trying to put their ideology into the court and onto their decisions. anyone claiming otherwise is full of sh*t.

 

How else would they decide? I disagree with "ideology", I think "opinion" rooted in their ideology, would be more accurate. And that's why we have more than one Justice, and why I like a few from the range of ideologies. And by nature, ideologies are not right or wrong, they are just differences.

[kapkomet]

I watched the interview, and I enjoyed it. The man is brilliant, I don't care what anyone wants to say. His "ideology" is that the states should have more power and centralized government should have less. And I'm all for that.

[Texsox]

The closer the power is to the people, the better the accountability.

[Balta1701]

Anita Hill climbs back onto the national scene to reply.

[Gregory Pratt]

Anita Hill climbs back onto the national scene to reply.

 

Oh, she's just crazy. No woman is ever right when she accuses a man of something -- particularly not when it's a Republican, because women are all Democrats.

[Gregory Pratt]

Oh, and don't think democrats don't disappoint me. I find it abhorrent how many people turn sexual harassment into a partisan issue or discredit Hill/Willey/Broderick as "nuts" or "sluts" or publicity whores. (Paula Jones is off my list of credible people because her original lawsuit asked him to declare they hadn't slept together because that's what an article said. Then she fell in with Ann Coulter & Lawyer Friends who turned it into a sexual harassment suit that she wasn't really looking for.)

[Chet Lemon]

The man is brilliant, I don't care what anyone wants to say. His "ideology" is that the states should have more power and centralized government should have less. And I'm all for that.

 

Except a few recent cases:

Gonzales v. Carhart: Allowed Fed. Gov't abortion laws to trounce state abortion laws

Gonzales v. Oregon: Would have allowed Fed. Gov't to prosecute Doctors that are requested for physician-assisted suicide of terminally ill patients per Oregon State Law (Death w/ Death Dignity Act)

 

Whether or not one agrees with the decisions in the cases, Thomas has contradicted his views that the Constitution only gives Fed. Gov't limited powers (i.e. regulate interstate commerce) by giving the Feds more power than stated in the Constitution.

[Jenksismyhero]

Except a few recent cases:

Gonzales v. Carhart: Allowed Fed. Gov't abortion laws to trounce state abortion laws

Gonzales v. Oregon: Would have allowed Fed. Gov't to prosecute Doctors that are requested for physician-assisted suicide of terminally ill patients per Oregon State Law (Death w/ Death Dignity Act)

 

Whether or not one agrees with the decisions in the cases, Thomas has contradicted his views that the Constitution only gives Fed. Gov't limited powers (i.e. regulate interstate commerce) by giving the Feds more power than stated in the Constitution.

 

Did you read his concurring opinion in Carhart?

 

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins,concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately appliescurrent jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980–983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts didnot address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring).

 

Or his dissenting opinion in Oregon?

 

I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. Raich, supra, at ___ (THOMAS, J., dissenting); cf. Whitman, supra, at 486–487 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies). But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power.

 

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

Oh, she's just crazy. No woman is ever right when she accuses a man of something -- particularly not when it's a Republican, because women are all Democrats.

 

 

well, I've always thought you were special needs....now we have the proof.

[kapkomet]

Did you read his concurring opinion in Carhart?

Or his dissenting opinion in Oregon?

Thank you Jenks. That was pretty much blown out of the water.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

well, I've always thought you were special needs....now we have the proof.

 

You are dumber than I thought if you didn't catch the sarcasm.

[sox4lifeinPA]

You are dumber than I thought if you didn't catch the sarcasm.

 

 

if you weren't bizarre all the time, I might have taken that as sarcasm...

[Chet Lemon]

Did you read his concurring opinion in Carhart?

Or his dissenting opinion in Oregon?

 

Yes, which makes it easier to understand. He reiterates his views that Roe has no basis in the Constitution per his dissent in Casey (1992). Fine, as Casey had to do w/ states regulating abortion. That is clear, consistent and understandable. Carhart increased federal regulation over a state's rights issue.

 

"I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts didnot address it. "

 

And neither was Roe or Casey in Carhart, but that did not prevent him from reiterating his views about those cases.

 

"I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. Raich, supra, at ___ (THOMAS, J., dissenting); cf. Whitman, supra, at 486–487 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies). But that is now water over the dam."

 

He capitualtes a previous position protecting state laws vs. fed. laws in Raich. So his passionate dissent in Raich (a few years ago) "is now water over the dam"? The passionate dissent protecting state laws vs. fed. laws (Casey) from more than 15 years ago has not reached that dam I guess.